Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Hollie]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

Okay, I' try it again. . . .


Yep. Came up 4 again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion

I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!

Now, given the above
Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?

M.D. Rawlings:
Yep! Tried TAG again.
Came up with NO NO NO again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.

Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.

 

[Hollie]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.

I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.

He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

Okay, I' try it again. . . .


Yep. Came up 4 again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion

I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!

Now, given the above
Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?

M.D. Rawlings:
Yep! Tried TAG again.
Came up with NO NO NO again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.

Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.

Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.

I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.

He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.

It takes a lot of intelligence to justify and argue in circles at 900 mph.
Maybe not wise but intelligent.

 

[G.T.]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

 

[Hollie]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.

I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.

He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.

It takes a lot of intelligence to justify and argue in circles at 900 mph.
Maybe not wise but intelligent.

If you've noticed, his "arguments" are nothing more than a shuffling around of the same cut and paste nonsense he's been spamming this thread and others with.

He's the most repetitive (and prolific) cut and paster on the board.

 

[Hollie]

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off.

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

Okay, I' try it again. . . .


Yep. Came up 4 again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion

I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!

Now, given the above
Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?

M.D. Rawlings:
Yep! Tried TAG again.
Came up with NO NO NO again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.

Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.

Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf

I think he's more likely the angry, self-hater with short man complex.

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

 

[G.T.]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.

Okay, I' try it again. . . .


Yep. Came up 4 again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion

I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!

Now, given the above
Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?

M.D. Rawlings:
Yep! Tried TAG again.
Came up with NO NO NO again! It's the ding dong dangest thing!

There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.

Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.

Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf

I think he's more likely the angry, self-hater with short man complex.

I don't think it is self-hate, but yes, there is some lack of faith or confidence
that would make people question, project and lash out at others to "overcompensate."

He's not missing in intelligence, or missing in the dept of being a bullheaded bully.
He does not have faith that the absolute truths can be translated into relative terms without losing their integrity.

To "prove" that other people are on the same page with him and aren't trying to undermine or dilute the meaning,
he has to have a sign of proof by having people submit to his TAG proof as is, without any changes to it.

He is acting like the jealous God who wants no other gods before him.
To make sure that other people are really in agreement, because he has no faith otherwise
that people mean the same God unless it is on HIS terms.

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

 

[G.T.]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.

 

[G.T.]

As far as anyone can tell, even those lying to themselves that they've proven something - the primacy of existence can be true.

Which is to say existence came before any minds.

Logic doesn't need anything to ground it which transcends the physical world - reality itself grounds it just fine.

 

[dblack]

tl;dr

 

[emilynghiem]

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.

No, the equivalent of TAG is to start with something YOU agree exists.
like Life or Nature.

Some Jihadist can say God is wishing war on the world, and I don't agree with THAT.

G.T. if you believe there is a source or standard of truth that is universal for people,
that's enough.

just start with something that is so naturally self-existing
that you don't question it. And you would start your own TAG set up from that platform.

Life.
The Universe.
All Things. What do you call the default that will be here before and after you and all humans. Whatever you call that.

 

[G.T.]

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.

No, the equivalent of TAG is to start with something YOU agree exists.
like Life or Nature.

Some Jihadist can say God is wishing war on the world, and I don't agree with THAT.

G.T. if you believe there is a source or standard of truth that is universal for people,
that's enough.

just start with something that is so naturally self-existing
that you don't question it. And you would start your own TAG set up from that platform.

Life.
The Universe.
All Things. What do you call the default that will be here before and after you and all humans. Whatever you call that.

I don't need to create a tag argument.

I have a higher standard for proof and more morals than to do so.

TAG is a dishonest tactic which defines something into existence to goad that you've thus proven it exists! Brilliant!

Except its not.

I dont have to define my own disingenuous TAG argument because I have the honesty to say "I don't know," and keep it funky.

I DO consider ppl who think they know origins as an absolute fact, liars.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

we'll try again to for an answer - sinner.


existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?

.

Stop it. You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me!) No one knows what you're talking about.

.

mdr: There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.

the sinner has no remorse, how special ...


why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?

.

Okay, I'll try it again. . . .








Yep. Came up 4 again! No fairies wear boots in sight. It's the ding dong dangest thing!

No fairies wear boots in sight.

mdr: "There is no need to "modernize" the Bible".

nor remorse mdr - for christianity, you refer to as the religion of God ...


that's funny you would use the word "modernize" for what the bible is not in need of.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

we'll try again to for an answer - sinner.


existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?

.

Stop it. You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me!) No one knows what you're talking about.

.

mdr: There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.

the sinner has no remorse, how special ...


why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?

.

Okay, I'll try it again. . . .








Yep. Came up 4 again! No fairies wear boots in sight. It's the ding dong dangest thing!

No fairies wear boots in sight.

mdr: "There is no need to "modernize" the Bible".

nor remorse mdr - for christianity, you refer to as the religion of God ...


that's funny you would use the word "modernize" for what the bible is not in need of.

.

The religion of God is loving charity for all.
The greatest act of charity is forgiveness.
The more we forgive the more we receive.
We grow in love by uplifting one another
and helping each other to become better people.

Peace to you and carry on for the love of
Truth justice and humanity sake. Amen,

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
How did you first come to understand that
God Jesus and the Bible represented true things that impacted your life and humanity.

Was it by explanation?
Was it by changing your life?
Did you have to let go of past thinking?

1. When Dr. Phillip Goldfedder found out, it was because someone demonstrated how spiritual healing worked. Now Goldfedder shares healing with others to teach more people by direct demonstration. Because it involves forgivng and letting go, each person teaches others to forgive and receive healing.

2. My friend Olivia learned after she was healed of cancer and has been teaching others to forgive and to receive healing the same way so it multiplies.

3. I learned after I forgave very abusive relations and started over. Thats when I had a rebirth/rapture type experience and saw the meaning of the Bible and world peace asthe future of humanity.

None of us came to this understanding through TAG.

Even Francis MacNutt learned of spiritual healing by others who demonstrated it as real and natural.

How did you both come to.understand God and Jesus Christ?

Was it through TAG or didnt you learn to write out those points after you already understood.

What was your process that changed your mind or first showed you wjat God means?

Thanks!

 

[Boss]

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively...

Boss is certainly NOT refuted. God is omnipotent, God created everything. To form ANY argument to the contrary, is to insist that God cannot be omnipotent or omniscient. You're free to believe in THAT God, but you have not refuted MY God.